At 8/31/2011 5:54:50 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:Illinois is the only state, that I'm aware of, where it is illegal to record anyone (audio and/or video) without their consent.

Of course, the police violate their own law EVERY day with their dashboard cams.

F*ck Illinois and their draconian law.

Technically, they don't. Since it is written into the law to accomidate for police. This will likely be dropped. It is also written in that the law doesn't apply to public meetings. However, it specifically excludes courts from the exculsion (if that makes sense) for the purpose of protecting the people facing crimes, not the judge and such.

If this was Canada there would probably already be outrage since policy brutality and such is relatively rare here so it does get reactions when it happens. The last major incident was the one in the Vancouver airport.

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

Technically, they don't. Since it is written into the law to accomidate for police. This will likely be dropped. It is also written in that the law doesn't apply to public meetings. However, it specifically excludes courts from the exculsion (if that makes sense) for the purpose of protecting the people facing crimes, not the judge and such.

Though the law says that he needs "consent" not simply "awareness.":

I figured there'd be some loophole for cops. Whatever the case, I don't see how this can hold up. I mean, is the media exempt? Are tourists innocently taking video exempt?

At 8/31/2011 6:01:43 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:If this was Canada there would probably already be outrage since policy brutality and such is relatively rare here so it does get reactions when it happens. The last major incident was the one in the Vancouver airport.:

It's what keeps cops honest. Taking this away from the people of Illinois is setting a very dangerous precedent.

Invading a sovereign while blatantly ignoring the right to secede, suspending habeus corpus, instituting the draft, jailing protestors, and all in all ending the concept of limited government for decades to come was not justified and makes him perhaps the most draconian president in history.

Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"

Technically, they don't. Since it is written into the law to accomidate for police. This will likely be dropped. It is also written in that the law doesn't apply to public meetings. However, it specifically excludes courts from the exculsion (if that makes sense) for the purpose of protecting the people facing crimes, not the judge and such.

Though the law says that he needs "consent" not simply "awareness.":

I figured there'd be some loophole for cops. Whatever the case, I don't see how this can hold up. I mean, is the media exempt? Are tourists innocently taking video exempt?

Media, often. Tourists, yes. That is because it is about intent. If you intend to record someone, it is a crime, if you are recording your friend and someone happens to be in the back ground, it is not. So if the media is just covering a story, and you happen to be there, they are fine. If they are doing some sexual divient sting, they could actually run into trouble if they do not have a warrent for the video.

At 8/31/2011 6:46:58 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:Invading a sovereign while blatantly ignoring the right to secede, suspending habeus corpus, instituting the draft, jailing protestors, and all in all ending the concept of limited government for decades to come was not justified and makes him perhaps the most draconian president in history.

draconian law is strict and severe punishment for frivolous and menial crime. What you described wads not Draconian law. Furthermore, if you want me to prove to you that secession was without a doubt illegal and there was no moral right to do so, I can either debate you, or we can visit the society section of the forum.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 8/31/2011 6:46:58 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:Invading a sovereign while blatantly ignoring the right to secede, suspending habeus corpus, instituting the draft, jailing protestors, and all in all ending the concept of limited government for decades to come was not justified and makes him perhaps the most draconian president in history.

At 8/31/2011 6:46:58 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:Invading a sovereign while blatantly ignoring the right to secede, suspending habeus corpus, instituting the draft, jailing protestors, and all in all ending the concept of limited government for decades to come was not justified and makes him perhaps the most draconian president in history.

draconian law is strict and severe punishment for frivolous and menial crime. What you described wads not Draconian law. Furthermore, if you want me to prove to you that secession was without a doubt illegal and there was no moral right to do so, I can either debate you, or we can visit the society section of the forum.

I'd love to see forums, so others can participate. Also given that this would likely need more than 5 rounds.

Media, often. Tourists, yes. That is because it is about intent. If you intend to record someone, it is a crime, if you are recording your friend and someone happens to be in the back ground, it is not.:

Then I can't wait for the landmark Supreme Court case where an Illinois resident films some police brutality and totally turns it on their heads.

At 8/31/2011 6:46:58 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:Invading a sovereign while blatantly ignoring the right to secede, suspending habeus corpus, instituting the draft, jailing protestors, and all in all ending the concept of limited government for decades to come was not justified and makes him perhaps the most draconian president in history.

Agreed he was a very draconian president, but not the most. However, he did set a dangerous precedent.